New Letter From the European Patent Office Explains How the Office Plots to Grant Many Illegal Patents, a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of 'Growth'
A recent publication sent to António Campinos and his corrupt officials [1, 2] (some appointed by Benoît Battistelli) talks about serious issues at the Office, which include granting of European software patents - i.e. patents which are both illegal and undesirable.
This is how this publication (a letter) was presented to EPO staff earlier this week:
Open letter to Mr Rowan (VP1) and Mr Aledo Lopez (COO)
Dear Colleagues,
The Initial 2026 Budgetary Orientations (CA/25/25, p. 4) foresee an increase in absolute production (SEO products) of 2.7% along with a 60% examiner replacement rate.
Each year, when these orientations are translated into DG1 targets, a buffer is added, which means that the effective targets for DG1 in 2026 are likely to exceed the announced 2.7%. This approach is not any longer sustainable and moreover it appears to diverge from the financial study’s recommendation of a 2.1% annual productivity increase.
What justifies this disparity?
In this open letter, we request transparency with the target setting for 2026 and a true bottom-up approach.
Sincerely yours,
The Central Staff Committee
In the letter, pay close attention to what they say about "fixed term contracts [being] exploited to press ever increasing demands upon them." Doing this to examiners is very likely a violation of the EPC and moreover a way to compel examiners to grant illegal patents, which means many software patents as well.
European Patent Office
80298 Munich
GermanyCentral Staff Committee
Comité central du personnel
Zentraler PersonalausschusscentralSTCOM@epo.org
Reference: sc25046cl
Date: 04/07/2025
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
To: Mr Steve Rowan (VP1)
Cc: Mr Angel Aledo Lopez (COO)By email: To: vp1@epo.org
Cc: coo@epo.orgOPEN LETTER
Transparency with the target setting for 2026 and a true bottom-up approach
Dear Mr Rowan,
Dear Mr Aledo Lopez,The Initial 2026 Budgetary Orientations1 foresee an increase in absolute production (SEO products) of 2.7% along with a 60% examiner replacement rate. Each year, when these orientations are translated into DG1 targets, a buffer is added, which means that the effective targets for DG1 in 2026 are likely to exceed the announced 2.7%. This approach is not any longer sustainable and moreover it appears to diverge from the financial study’s recommendation of a 2.1% annual productivity increase2 . What justifies this disparity?
Moreover, historically, differences between technical fields were recognized with different peer productivity values and shared with staff.
_______
1 CA/25/25, p.4
2 In order to convert budget plans into DG1 targets, the actual number of examiners needs to be taken into account. The number of examiners in post is always substantially lower than the number of budgeted posts. This, the 60% replacement rate, and the “buffer” introduced when converting the budget plan to DG1 targets, means that the actual expected productivity increase for 2026 is likely to be higher than 2.7%.
We therefore respectfully request that:
- The difficulty and complexity of files in the field of each the team be genuinely considered at the time of target setting.
- Transparency is provided as to how the target increases are distributed among directorate, teams and individuals; and how the distribution looked like in the previous years.
- A rationale is provided for the minimum time required to complete a standard (BEST) file with a sufficient granularity by technical fields.
Along such an analysis being shared with the Staff Representation, we further request that:
- Colleagues are meaningfully consulted on the number of EPC compliant products which they expect to be able to deliver in 2026.
- A meaningful account is given to colleagues that have recently changed technical field or been active in several technical fields.
- The above provisional plan is reviewed to include a bottom-up approach to target setting for the final 2026 budget.
- The fact that colleagues are on fixed term contracts is not exploited to press ever increasing demands upon them.
The Staff Representation is looking forward to resuming with a long overdue social dialogue on such operational matters.
Sincerely yours,
Derek Kelly
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee
They will probably reject the simple facts, reject reality itself, and then resort to attacking the messenger, which includes us. The letter above is dated one week ago, i.e. a Friday. █